Creation is a Scientific Fact

Con, you sounded angry, calm down man. You are still within topic but you are starting to stray, especially when you are angry. It is hard to talk to
an angry man. I just want to pick on tiny part to comment because it is personal to me.

See? I dare to say personal.

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Creationists are not allowed in Science Mel and THAT is the political shenanigans of Evolutionists having nothing to do with their will to
keep Science alive but to continue the advancement of their religion of Atheism and THAT I am convinced. It is the only Science so threatened by
Christians entering it and to me,, that says something.

I hold both evolution and creationism in high regards, but there is a place and time for everything. When it comes to the topic of teaching
creationism in public schools, there is only two choices. Teach everything, everywhere to everybody, or teach your own ideology/science whatever, to
your own audience at your own location. Which do you prefer? Hold on to that thought. Don’t teach both at all would also be fair, but denying
education to our kids is not the way, we don’t want to entertain this idea.

While you are convinced there is an agenda by Evolutionist to keep out creationism from public schools, you surely have to realize there are more to
it. Evolution is first up not because it wanted to, but because Creationism is a direct challenge, what other choice do they have? If Creationism
succeeded in entering public schools, other ideologies/science would want to be taught in public schools too. Remember, other religions have their
own concept on how life started too. Religious fanatics and fundimentalists are just watching and waiting for an opportunity to cry for equal rights.
Do you want to open a Pandora’s Box?

Now, if your argument is for equal education and fair opportunity, would you flinch from the idea of teaching both Creationism and Evolution in
Churches, Christian Colleges, Sunday Schools etc etc? I would object strongly. I want to protect and keep separate the boundaries of public schools
as well as churches, temples, mosques, gentlemen’s clubs, ladies’ clubs, heck, I want to keep toilets separated also, what’s with the nonsense
unisex toilets? That’s why I support teaching your own ideology/science whatever, to your own audience at your own location.

That said, there is one place which has succeeded in teaching all major religions in public schools until today. That’s Singapore. That’s another
story for another day in another thread, and only if you are interested.

To round it off, Creationists should concentrate on promoting their ideas through their resources. Public schools are not one of their resources and
should stay that way. There are other more accessable ways, TV, books, internet to educate the public. Why the insistence on public schools? Really
hope you understand Pandora's Box.

[edit on 12-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]

While I was writing and posting this, you and mel had patched up. Now, isn't that sweet.

Originally posted by melatonin
Con, ash's thread was nothing extraordinary. Such threads have been made repeatedly since I have been a member here. Although not quite as
pretentious and passive-aggressive.

*Holding my breath, counting to ten, and walking away*

Apparently some cannot understand what inspired that thread in spite of repeated explanations.

And that is all I am going to say. That's one thread, this is another.

WHEN and HOW did the UNIVERSE Begin?

Dr. William Lane Craig discusses the origin of the universe

I am weary of the pointless personal attacks and irrational emotional responses from the non creationists. Creation is the scientific consensus. If
non creationists want to believe atheistic magic that's fine you have a right too your religious freedom; just don't claim science is on your side.
It's not.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not even about stopping creationism per se being taught in schools in some way. And it certainly isn't in the UK, as
it is taught. Just taught where it belongs - in RE classes. In the UK, RE also tends to not be a form of indoctrination, more a lesson aimed at giving
a broad understanding of religion across society.

The problem in the US is that I doubt this could ever happen at this level, as the people who want creationism in schools are more interested in
selective indoctrination and 'renewing culture' than a rounded education.

However, creationism doesn't belong in a science class - it is many things, but it isn't science.

well said Mel. It doesn't belong in a science class. . . but let's not act as if science classes in this country are immaculate. Personally, I have
problems with the way science is taught in high schools. At least the high schools in my area. I don't know about the rest of the country, but what
is being taught here is objectionable. Ironically, i'm mostly referring to chemistry and physics.

What amused me most about this video was not the OP's axe, that he so enjoys grinding, it's the constant assertion of obviously fraudulent claims.
The entire thing is based on false prepositions and just extrapolates from there. See Fractal Wrongness for more info!

For example, it's the insistance that "atheism" is a religion. It can't be a religion, because it goes against what theism is, in its entirety.
It makes no demands, it has no holy laws, scriptures or writs, and it does not judge a person by the actions they make.

It does not require faith, it does not require anything. The scientific world view simply presents facts as they can be readily measured and repeated
by any other human alive to determine the obvious state of affairs within the universe.

But this is far less likely to creationists than some wandering nut-job who, thousands of years ago, came down off a mountain or out of a desert
spouting how he has spoken to God!

I mean, where is the veracity there? Why would you trust someone like that? If I came up to you in the street, babbling how I was up on a mountain
for twenty years, and God told me to come down and tell you how to live your life, would you believe me? If not, why would you believe someone from
thousands of years ago? Because it's old it makes it authentic? Or does it make it ignorant?

Anyway, enjoy the magic god-angels who deliver this message to your computer monitor, so that your own magical god-angels can deliver your inane and
"but we have faaaaaaaaith" response back to me.

[edit] I also liked the "if the universe was eternal, there'd be no energy left in it" line. Apart from the fact energy can neither be created nor
destroyed...where are you getting this from?

What amused me most about this video was not the OP's axe, that he so enjoys grinding, it's the constant assertion of obviously fraudulent claims.
The entire thing is based on false prepositions and just extrapolates from there. See Fractal Wrongness for more info!

What axe? and did you mean "proposition" not "preposition"

For example, it's the insistance that "atheism" is a religion. It can't be a religion, because it goes against what theism is, in its
entirety.

No actually it doesn't go against "theism" a Theologist is one who study theism and theism is religion in which ther are many types.

A monotheist is a religion with one God a polytheist, poly meaning many is a religion with many gods pantheism is one that encompasses all religions
and Gods or religions that have no Gods which brings me to "Atheism" a religion without a God. a Theist is any one of them with the exception of
atheist, NOT because it isn't a theism but that atheists are the only one of them with the distinction of not having a god. That has nothing to do
with Religion anymore than Jesus had anything to do with them. Belief or non belief in a deity does NOT a religion make and all those words with
"theism" are theism's regardless of whether or not their particular brand of theism has a God or not.

It makes no demands, it has no holy laws, scriptures or writs, and it does not judge a person by the actions they make.

No, not in and of itself but the people sure as hell do, just like most religions.

I mean, where is the veracity there? Why would you trust someone like that? If I came up to you in the street, babbling how I was up on a
mountain for twenty years, and God told me to come down and tell you how to live your life, would you believe me? If not, why would you believe
someone from thousands of years ago? Because it's old it makes it authentic? Or does it make it ignorant?

You sound like you just swallowed one of Dawkins books so Ill use one of his quotes ripped apart by Rich Deem.

The fourth chapter of The God Delusion is what Richard Dawkins considers to be his most convincing argument that no gods exist. He calls this
argument the "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit." Dawkins asserts that the "The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving
that God does not exist." However, as we shall see, Dawkins' argument is formally fallacious. Dawkins, of course, believes that evolution
(biological or cosmological) can explain all of nature, and presents arguments to support his views in this chapter.

The Ultimate Boeing 747The Boeing 747 allusion is from Fred Hoyle's famous argument against the probability of life spontaneously assembling itself
on the primordial earth. According to Hoyle, the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the probability that a tornado, sweeping
through a junkyard, would assemble a working Boeing 747 airliner. However, Dawkins turns the argument around, and concludes that any designer must be
even more improbable:

However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God
is the Ultimate Boeing 747.

Dawkins does not present the argument formally, but here it is extracted from the few sentences he actually devotes to the argument:

Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible
Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of gods)
Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no god can exist
Although Dawkins does not believe that premise #1 is true, he accepts it as such, supposedly being a premise that all theists would accept as true.
However, theists make no such claim that all possible entities require design. Specifically, we can't know for sure if God shows evidence of design,
since He is not even a physical entity (God is a spirit1). The proof that the first premise is false can be shown by using it against Dawkins' own
preferred universe designer - the multiverse. Here is Dawkins' argument turned against itself:

Premise #3. Infinite regressions are not possible
Conclusion #1 implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of universes)
Conclusion #2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, so no universes can exist
Obviously, the universe does exist, so there must be something wrong with Dawkins' argument! Dawkins argument falls flat because premise #1 is false.
Entities can be either contingent or necessary. The Creator (or creator) of the universe is a necessary entity and is not contingent upon anything nor
requires a designer. This must be true or no universe would exist at all. So, Dawkins' argument is formally fallacious. Dawkins' failure to
distinguish between necessary and contingent entities also assumes that cause and effect operates upon all entities. However, the evidence indicates
that time itself began at the beginning of the Big Bang.2 Without the existence of time, cause and effect do not operate. So, whatever or Whoever
created the universe lies outside of time and space and has "always" existed. What was Dawkins thinking?

If old things are ignorant than why believe what you see in million year old fossils. You obviously don't know why anyone, millions in fact, find
veracity in that "old Book" and as much as I woujld like to explain that to you,, I gave up explaining things like that to people who willfully like
to remain ignorant a long time ago.

I mean really,, what is the point.

Anyway, enjoy the magic god-angels who deliver this message to your computer monitor, so that your own magical god-angels can deliver your
inane and "but we have faaaaaaaaith" response back to me.

see what I mean, you are too jaded to cynical and already think you know so damn much that you know Jack Crap about life and the world you are living
in.

Read the first line of that article and consider yourself corrected, thanks. You'll deny the article, I'm sure, but you're wrong about your
definition of atheism - it is the total rejection of gods and religion.

No, not in and of itself but the people sure as hell do, just like most religions.

We make only the same demand ATS itself does: Deny Ignorance.

I mean, where is the veracity there? Why would you trust someone like that? If I came up to you in the street, babbling how I was up on a mountain
for twenty years, and God told me to come down and tell you how to live your life, would you believe me? If not, why would you believe someone from
thousands of years ago? Because it's old it makes it authentic? Or does it make it ignorant?

You sound like you just swallowed one of Dawkins books so Ill use one of his quotes ripped apart by Rich Deem.

You misrepresent my position. With the section of argument you just quoted, the Boeing counter-argument is not valid, for I was not debating the
existence of God with that argument, just the likelyhood that the nutters who walked around preaching they had spoken to god were probably just a
bunch of nutters!

I've actually never read anything by Dawkins either, he's correct and all, just a bit dry for me.

If old things are ignorant than why believe what you see in million year old fossils. You obviously don't know why anyone, millions in fact,
find veracity in that "old Book" and as much as I woujld like to explain that to you,, I gave up explaining things like that to people who willfully
like to remain ignorant a long time ago.

Why make a sweeping generalisation that you know I am simply going to dismiss with a bit of easy logic?

I'm not saying all old things are ignorant, and if I were, that statement would have no bearing on fossils as they never wrote a book and never tried
to get me to believe something that was not the truth.

All they do is exist as hard physical evidence, and we can use them as evidence because they are their own proof.

I mean really,, what is the point.

Good question, your points have been of poor quality.

see what I mean, you are too jaded to cynical and already think you know so damn much that you know Jack Crap about life and the world you are
living in.

Are you mental? I'm not the one resigned to "oh, it was god then". I'm actually researching this for myself, searching endlessly until I
actually get to the truth. I don't think it'll ever really turn up, we'll just keep going through layers upon layers of truth, like going from
molecules to atoms to subatomic particles to quarks etc. But regardless, I am still not laying around on my lazy-ass excuse for everything, unlike
you and every other creationist in existence!

I've never heard anything more jaded than the willful attempt to discover nothing new about the world.

Read the first line of that article and consider yourself corrected, thanks. You'll deny the article, I'm sure, but you're wrong about your
definition of atheism - it is the total rejection of gods and religion.

Yeah?? Tell that to Sam HARRIS who is Buddhist because his is an "Atheistic" religion. This is why I don't use wiki that often.

You still don't get it but the United States Supreme Court has also ruled it a religion. It's not like I haven't had this argument before smart
guy

Rejection of a deity has nothing to do with "theism" other than what status your theistic philosophy is about.

1) The default Theism or one having a God

2) The rest are various versions of the first having one or more

3) Atheism can not logically be included in the word theism as a whole because it doesn't have any Gods but THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION
other than the status a God plays in it or doesn't play in it

Got it?

Theism is the belief in a god or gods. Classical theism affirms the existence of one god, and ascribes to this god certain attributes, e.g.
omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, and impassibility. The aim of this site is to define these attributes, and explore the difficulties that arise
when one tries to explain them.

There are many different positions concerning the existence and nature of God; theism is just one of many alternatives. Rival positions include
atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, and deism.

Atheism and Agnosticism
Those without belief in God may be either atheists or agnostics. Atheism may be defined either weakly as the absence of belief in God, or in a
stronger form as active disbelief in God.

Agnosticism too comes in weaker and stronger forms; agnosticism may be understood as simple uncertainty, indecision concerning God’s existence, or
it may be understood as the view that the question as to whether God exists is one that in principle can never be answered.

Pantheism and Panentheism
Pantheism, meanwhile, instead of affirming the existence of a God who is outside the universe, transcending it, identifies God with the universe.
Everything, according to pantheists, is a part of God, because God simply is the sum total of all that exists.

This view is close to, but distinct from, that of panentheism, which holds not that God is everything, but that God is in everything. This view
combines the pantheist’s reverence for the natural world with the theist’s insistence that God himself is a supernatural being.

Deism
In Western society, one of theism’s strongest rivals, historically speaking, has been deism. Deists affirm the existence of God, but deny that he
has revealed himself to us as is claimed by the monotheistic religions. They thus accept the idea of God as Creator, but reject purported revelation
such as the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran. The deist god merely set the universe in motion; he does not intervene in it on a continuous basis in the
way that theists have claimed.

Theism
Theism, against each of the views described above, affirms both the existence of a transcendent God and that that God is involved in Creation. It
comes in different forms: monotheism insists that there is only one God; polytheism holds that there are many; henotheism agrees with polytheism that
there are many gods but pays special homage to one of them.

While different theistic religions may vary in some respects, they all share a common core. Though Jews, Christians, and Muslims, for example,
disagree in some respects about the nature of God, their conception of him is close enough that it makes sense to ask whether these three different
religions all involve worship of the same being.

The theism explored on this site is classical theism, a description of God’s attributes that emerged from the fusion of Jewish, Greek, and Christian
influences. Classical theism sees God as all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), unchanging (immutable), perfect, and eternal, for
example. This God is not simply the God of faith; he is also the God of philosophy.

We make only the same demand ATS itself does: Deny Ignorance.

Yeah? Deny this:

Now we all see the only ignorance you deny is your own

You misrepresent my position. With the section of argument you just quoted, the Boeing counter-argument is not valid, for I was not debating
the existence of God with that argument, just the likelyhood that the nutters who walked around preaching they had spoken to god were probably just a
bunch of nutters!

Yeah I was just matching your likelyhood argument with the likelyhood a tornado went through a junkyard and made a perfect 747. By the way, the
"nutters" told me to tell you, you are miss representing them lol

I've actually never read anything by Dawkins either, he's correct and all, just a bit dry for me.

You just said you never read anything by Dawkins, so how the hell do you know he is correct?

I'm not saying all old things are ignorant, and if I were, that statement would have no bearing on fossils as they never wrote a book and
never tried to get me to believe something that was not the truth.

All they do is exist as hard physical evidence, and we can use them as evidence because they are their own proof.

Then don't place the entire weight of your argument on the age of a book! That is where I get the idea YOU got a problem with things that are old.

Good question, your points have been of poor quality..

Not next to yours.

Are you mental?

Umm I sure hope so. YOU?

I am still not laying around on my lazy-ass excuse for everything, unlike you and every other creationist in existence!

Ill just shove this shoe in your mouth using your own damn words hotshot

"Why make a sweeping generalisation that you know I am simply going to dismiss with a bit of easy logic? "

Whoa, I've seen other people remark on this, and you are pretty damn aggressive. I guess it's the whole "house built on sand" thing.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Yeah?? Tell that to Sam HARRIS who is Buddhist because his is an "Atheistic" religion.

Who the # is Sam HARRIS? Why should I care whether he's a Buddhist who has rejected the Hindu pantheon? What difference does that make, it's not
new in anyway. Buddhism doesn't care for gods either way, to my understanding, as it says they are also still trapped on the wheel with everyone
else, and the object is simply to step off the wheel.

Originally posted by ConspiriologyYou still don't get it but the United States Supreme Court has also ruled it a religion. It's not
like I haven't had this argument before smart guy

So what? That doesn't mean a bunch of God-fearing Yanks have it right, it just means they are scared of everyone waking up and realising there's no
God. Do you even know what provoked it? Some idiot in prison wanting to create an atheist study group. That doesn't mean, and like you agreed,
that the disbelief in divine entities and the rejection of organised religion is actually a religion because, and i repeat, like you agreed, there is
no doctrine, no punishments, no requirements, in fact, there is nothing approaching worship at all!

Originally posted by ConspiriologyRejection of a deity has nothing to do with "theism" other than what status your theistic philosophy
is about.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. It's like saying things that are mutually exclusive are not actually mutually exclusive.

When theism means "believing in a god or gods" how can atheism "not believeing in a god or gods" have nothing to do with it? It is clearly it's
polar opposite.

I know what you are trying to say, that atheism is just another religious point of view, but that's not what people mean when they claim atheism,
please see below.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
1) The default Theism or one having a God...Got it?

Okay, technically, you are actually correct, but by all practical means and definitions, people understand atheism as being irreligion. They are
used interchangably in everyday speech. When one says "I am an atheist" they are saying "I do not believe there are gods or supernatural powers,
and I reject organised relgion".

Yes, there are rare cases like in Buddhism, where dieties are not central to the worldview of that religion, but in any other case I can think of,
dieties are essential to the religion and therefore atheism is a rejection of it.

Amazing. Did you even visit the link or just assume that Google search was enough?

The "First Church of Atheism" is clearly a way of sticking it in the craw of religious types.

You can become ordained online and marry, divorce or perform funeral services? Hilarious.

"The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including
government or church authority."

This is clearly a get-back at the Catholic Church. Notice there are no theological articles, no instructions for worship and nothing that could
classify it as a religion, despite the fact it claims to be one. to parody the Church.

Originally posted by ConspiriologyYeah I was just matching your likelyhood argument with the likelyhood a tornado went through a
junkyard and made a perfect 747. By the way, the "nutters" told me to tell you, you are miss representing them lol

Remember, evolution has had BILLIONS of years to get you to how you are now. I know it seems unlikely, but there have been so many countless failed
attempts that eventually, one has managed to spawn a worthwhile line from which everything else has descended. I'm amazed it hasn't happened more
than once, given the time span.

I don't think the "prophets" are being misrepresented one bit: man goes up onto mountain / out into desert, comes back, claiming to have spoken to
God. That's exactly what they did, and I'm telling you it's exactly a pile of bull to try and develop a political power base.

You just said you never read anything by Dawkins, so how the hell do you know he is correct?

Because I have watched documentaries narrated by him, and read small exerpts of his writings that detail his position on the matter. Honestly, it
wasn't such a leap to get that, was it?

Originally posted by ConspiriologyThen don't place the entire weight of your argument on the age of a book! That is where I get the
idea YOU got a problem with things that are old.

Are you actually being wilfully stupid? I'm not trying to offend, I actually need to know, because if you are, I'm not going to continue this
discussion past this post.

You must understand that it isn't the fact the book is old that is the problem. It's the fact that it claims to have complete knowledge of the
universe and how it was created, evolved and established itself, when it is clearly false, as proven by modern science. The fact that it's old just
underlines the point that the people back then where ignorant - not stupid - of what the universe is actually like, so they had to make their best
guess! Therefore, a book written such a long time ago could NEVER explain the universe because at the time, they did not know very much about it at
all! And yet, you put 100% of your faith in it and regard it as infallable. Doesn't that seem silly to you?

Not next to yours.

Because you've a habit of taking a straw-man argument and basing your entire argument on that.

Ill just shove this shoe in your mouth using your own damn words hotshot

"Why make a sweeping generalisation that you know I am simply going to dismiss with a bit of easy logic? "

You can't end on that and realistically expect me to think you're correct. I'm still waiting for the easy logic by which you'll dismiss my
arguments.

Yeah?? Tell that to Sam HARRIS who is Buddhist because his is an "Atheistic" religion. This is why I don't use wiki that often.

"a" = no/not
"theist" = derived from theos as in god

no theos
no god

there are christian atheists
people who follow the teachings of jesus without the religious connotations

expanding your horizons instead of delineating this as a two-sided argument would really do wonders for the discussion.

You still don't get it but the United States Supreme Court has also ruled it a religion. It's not like I haven't had this argument before
smart guy

no, it ruled that atheism is, with regards to the protections granted to people of religion, a position granted the same protection as a religion
is.

it is not a religion

atheism is a single position
no
god

1 thing

you can believe in souls and still be an atheist (though the common atheist also tends to be a monist and an aspiritualist)

Rejection of a deity has nothing to do with "theism" other than what status your theistic philosophy is about.

1) The default Theism or one having a God

2) The rest are various versions of the first having one or more

3) Atheism can not logically be included in the word theism as a whole because it doesn't have any Gods but THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION
other than the status a God plays in it or doesn't play in it

...you're missing the point.
the point is that there can be atheistic religion
sure, it may sound like an oxymoron to you, but that's probably due to the clear western bias you have.

Yeah? Deny this: [picture of google search with a lot of clear photoshopping and no defined search term visible]

well, i just looked at the first church of atheism site...it's basically a way to avoid legal harassment by becoming an ordained "minister" of
atheism, something that's fairly humorous in nature and akin to bobby henderson being the "prophet" of pastafarianism...

there's a wired article which is just titled "the church of the non-believers"

there's a blog post from the rational response squad that doesn't deal directly with these so called "churches" and their nature...

hmm

Now we all see the only ignorance you deny is your own

...well, you're kind of missing the whole "sense of humor" aspect of the church of atheism

you're also completely misrepresenting a lot of information...also called lying.

Yeah I was just matching your likelyhood argument with the likelyhood a tornado went through a junkyard and made a perfect 747. By the way, the
"nutters" told me to tell you, you are miss representing them lol

well, if you bet me about whether or not it would happen if there were 8.05354475 × 10^10 attempts every second for about 13.7 billion years...i'd
bet that it would happen...maybe it would even happen several times.

You just said you never read anything by Dawkins, so how the hell do you know he is correct?

well...dawkins does have the power of speech...doesn't he?

Not next to yours.

...not really. see, you're either lying to us with an image by digital manipulation or simply deceiving us by omitting the search terms..

i'd honestly love to see where you got those numbers and what your search terms were

and why you made such a horridly illogical argument that atheist churches exist because there are ways of working around legal bias against atheism by
becoming an ordained minister of atheism...

Before you spot the speck in my eye,,

take the LOG out of your own

Hows that for logic

...it's a statement i should've made to you many a time on this forum.

con, you honestly need to either learn to stop misrepresenting things or get off this site.

that goes for you too madnesssssssss you can't have it both ways pal you got that son NOPE No way. There are plenty of atheist churchs out there and
you can make as many cheap ass excuses as you want why they don't apply but the fact is YOUR argument isn't with me it is with friggin Atheists that
want it as a RELIGION so GO TELL THEM about and quit your incessant whining It has protections like a religion because IT IS a Religion you only want
to say you are not a religion so no one can call your silly ass science of evolution your damn bible so no one will kick it out of our public schools
according to the separation powers

Keep tryin

Atheism = Religion

Everyone I talk to knows this nowdays and if you don't like it TUFF They wanted to act like a religion have the arrogance of the religious so it is
well deserved and I couldn't agree more so DEAL WITH it!

your probability EXAMPLE doesn't mean squat madness probability DOESN'T HAVE MEMORY! SO IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY CHANCES IN 100 OR WHATEVER THE
NUMBER IS (not you cc, this is to madness, just don't have the time to post twice)

either learn to stop misrepresenting things or get off this site.

madness Ill do whatever the hell I want with or without your effing approval GOT IT SON! You don't own this place I know you THINK you do but YOU
DON'T. So don't tell me what to do madnesss.

frankly, you don't have the stones to be talkin to me like such a damn hard ass tuff guy and the thought of you actually doing such a thing in
person,,

That's a ridiculous thing to say. It's like saying things that are mutually exclusive are not actually mutually exclusive.

When theism means "believing in a god or gods" how can atheism "not believeing in a god or gods" have nothing to do with it? It is clearly it's
polar opposite.

I know what you are trying to say, that atheism is just another religious point of view, but that's not what people mean when they claim atheism,

I don't give a rats ass don't talk to me about it take it up with the dumb atheists or the judge it was his ruling not mine.

I just obey the law I don't make it.

Okay, technically, you are actually correct, but by all practical means and definitions, people understand atheism as being irreligion. They
are used interchangably in everyday speech. When one says "I am an atheist" they are saying "I do not believe there are gods or supernatural
powers, and I reject organised relgion".

Sorry can't have it both ways but I know what you're saying but so what you got a problem with it?
What on earth for ?

Yes, there are rare cases like in Buddhism, where dieties are not central to the worldview of that religion, but in any other case I can think
of, dieties are essential to the religion and therefore atheism is a rejection of it.

The "First Church of Atheism" is clearly a way of sticking it in the craw of religious types.

yeah so what there are like thousands there that are real

"The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including
government or church authority."

This is clearly a get-back at the Catholic Church. Notice there are no theological articles, no instructions for worship and nothing that could
classify it as a religion, despite the fact it claims to be one. to parody the Church.

Yeah I know seems atheists don't have anything better to do with there pitifull lil lives.

You must understand that it isn't the fact the book is old that is the problem. It's the fact that it claims to have complete knowledge of
the universe and how it was created, evolved and established itself, when it is clearly false, as proven by modern science. The fact that it's old
just underlines the point that the people back then where ignorant - not stupid - of what the universe is actually like, so they had to make their
best guess!

Ive heard this atheist argument a million times and it doesn't matter Atheist evolution is a religion and there God is their own damn ego they are
scared of the truth and the truth is God IS the truth AND the life.

I found it laughable that they said they universe is a fine tuned machine and basically fits in perfectly with mahemathics and so forth....Does that
prove its a divine made thing? NO! It just says that we have based science and everything else around the universe. What came first, the chicken or
the egg.

Originally posted by StefanO
I found it laughable that they said they universe is a fine tuned machine and basically fits in perfectly with mahemathics and so forth....Does that
prove its a divine made thing? NO! It just says that we have based science and everything else around the universe.

your statement is false and such confrontational and ignorant sentiments lead to the mistreatment of atheists.

I don't give a rats ass what you think it leads to madness. I remember when YOU told me, until Christians behave like logical rational people they
should be treated with ridicule.

...1: i'm not your son
2: i'm not trying to have it both ways, you're just trying to redefine things so that you can create a dichotomy that isn't there.

Sorry son, you're wrong their are many religions that have no God and they are Atheist religions furthermore

A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest
"monotheistic" religions, with belief one God, Creator Of The Universe.

Some religions are "polytheistic," with belief in many gods, each with different functions.

Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.

Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them
to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on "separation of church and state."

But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. A few years ago, the car I drove was a
big, old Chevrolet, whose color was black. In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical
definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.

If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.

If Atheism is a religion, then it must be subject to the same legal restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the
United States, the teaching of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching of Christianity is prohibited.

But where is Atheism being taught? Atheism is being taught, by default, in all places where other religions cannot be taught, particularly in the
public schools.

When the State mandates that the Theory of Evolution be taught as fact, that is establishing the religion of Atheism, because the Theory of Evolution
asserts that all life forms are created not by God, but by pre-existing natural processes. This is pure Atheism! If we are not created by God, then
there might as well be no God, for all the difference He makes.

The mere fact that many scientists are Atheists does not entitle them to establish Atheism as our State Religion!

When the State prohibits free discussion of God in the classroom, that is establishing the religion of Atheism. Wherever the State permits Atheistic
ideas to be spread but prohibits Theistic ideas, that is establishing the religion of Atheism.

Therefore I urge you to understand clearly in your mind that Atheism is a religion, just as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are religions. And any
restrictions placed on Christianity, Judaism, or Islam must also be placed on Atheism. Atheism must not be allowed to slip through its little loophole
any longer, by pretending it is not a religion.

you've yet to prove that point.
there's the highly questionable google search result evidence...especially since that whole "minister of atheism" thing is a loophole and a bit of
a joke...

I don't think this Atheist minister thinks it's a joke Madnessss, in fact he takes his duities as a minister of the First Church od Atheism very
serious and has been ordained like any other pastor but his religious philosophy is of course Atheism the religion of actively disbelieving in Godfirstchurchofatheism.com...

Thing is whether it is a loophole or not, when you get that status, start calling yourself pastor and have meetings of like minded folks at a Church
then that is a Religion and YOU ain't squirming out of it because YOU don't speak for Atheism you speak for YOU qand that is IT!

How DARE you insult these hard working men of the cloth and insult them calling Atheism a JOKE! Atheism is a religion and I respect religious people
no matter what faith they have.

Buddhists are atheists or people who lack belief in any gods. A Buddhist without belief in gods is not more or less "technically" an atheist than
YOU are. You don't get into the atheist club based on a technicality madnesss either the label applies or it doesn't, and that's it. Got it son?

There are two churches in Texas dedicated to freethought. The North Texas Church of Freethought and The Houston Church of Freethought the fact that
New York City is starting their own church of atheism isn't exactly a new idea either so guess what Madness,, Atheism is NOW a religion

yeah get used to it.

Evolution is inextricably tied to Atheism and law suit will soon be underway by the Covenant Presbyterian Churchs in America to have it removed for it
is being used as a religion masqurading as Science when its only purpose is to deceive people into actively disbelieving in God and become an Atheist.
Neil Degrasse Tyson has already admitted to using his show to advance the religion of Atheism. This infection of Science has always been obvious to
Christians but now it has caught the attention of more and more people and they are disgusted with it.

....actually, my argument isn't with them, as you've yet to prove that they exist. you've got this little group of atheists you want me to argue
with...when they don't seem to exist.

Just because you don't believe they exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist Madness, this has always been your problem with God too. Now you can't
even believe your own religion exists HA HA then you talk to me as If I am going to care enough to prove it! HA HA HA Get REAL I could care less if
you are so ignorant you don't know a thing about your own religion.

no, it's because it is a position on religion.
so far your only proof that atheism is a religion is because you're saying so.

and you are in denial and that is understandable but it really has nothing to do with the facts and the facts are their are more and more Atheists
becoming ordained ministers everyday and that isn't a joke but if you think it is,, just wait till the boom comes down and the joke gets taken
seriously enough that the joke is on YOU.

i will, but it seems doubtful that you're going to listen, as you keep repeating this fallacious statement that evolution is intrinsically tied to
atheism, when that is not so.

Great, then I can count on all those Atheists to stay the hell out of the up coming court case to remove evolution. I mean, they don't really have
any intrinsically compelling reason to as you said.

again, no proof presented, you're just stating it and attempting to ram this horribly untrue opinion down everyone's throat.

I don't see why you are having such a problem with this madness,, this is America and it is a persons right to religious expression and I am just
spreading the good news about the religion of Atheism so those who are interested can have a place to feel they belong.

...wow, i've seen logical fallacies on this site before, but this one takes the cake.

As if you knew a damn thing about logic

have you not taken statistics?

So you're saying probability DOES have memory? HA HA HA

again, you really need to bone up on your statistics. if you give something with a 1 in 1 billion chance of happening 10 billion tries, the most
likely outcome is about 10 successes.

No you're wrong madness YOU take statistics. I hang out with a Statistics Prof. at ASU and he would also like to know where you get your
information? Vegas?

...i'm just telling you not to misrepresent information..

No you were NOT, madness quit being so dishonest and read your post.
You were under no uncertain terms giving me an ultimatum

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins,

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.